Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons' core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


User nominating images with sources for deletion with no sources template[edit]

I noted that User:Jcb is nominating images for deletion due to no source/etc. but I am afraid that this being done without due attention. As at least one image of mine was deleted (I did not react in time because the template that was used on my talk page was malformed and suggested it is a problem with description - see here) I've decided to bring this here, particularly as in the random 4 images nominated by that user for deletion I was able to find source in three, and perhaps all four images:

  • File:8e R.A.jpg - malformed description template, but clear source "collection personnelle"
  • File:Sachsen-koenig - coat of arms.jpg - source was given in the original edit summary, accessible through the Original upload log field (H.G.Ströhl, Deutsche Wappenrolle, 1897)
  • File:Sakai Cockpit A5M.jpg - source is given in the description. The image is also clearly labelled as public domain, and so secondary source is of little importance as it cannot change public domain status.
  • File:Sala Mauretańska sufit.jpg - no source, but uploader chose CC with attribution, whose wording suggests it is their own picture.

While case number 4 is somewhat dubious, I am afraid that this small selection calls Jcb's judgement into question. I am afraid that user is not reviewing the files carefully, perhaps uses some automated tool that also leaves broken notification templates on uploader's talk page. I'd like to ask Jcb to stop tagging files for deletion, revert him/herself and resume only once he addresses the concerns raised. In addition, community review of all files deleted due to that user's nominations may be in order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I tag files for which the source information is not sufficient to determine copyright situation, which is obviously the case for all of these four files. If the community wants to review the about 50.000 files I have dealt with for the past six months, I wish them good luck. Jcb (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The community may then wish to stop you from creating further work for them, because as I've shown, your deletions and tagging are problematic. Why did you revert me at [1]? With no edit summary. This is clearly disruptive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is more:

Now, I am not saying all of your taggins are in error, I can't see a source for File:866corregidor map.jpg for example, and I support you there, but at least 50% of your recent tags seem dobious - source is given, or very easy to find. This IS a cause of concern, given how active you are in deleting things. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Please be aware that in most countries you have to show that the author has died more than 70 years ago, so just the date of publication is often not enough. And no, my error rate is not 50% of course. Jcb (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I am perfectly happen to extend good faith and say it is maybe just the last few taggings of yours which have a bad ratio; it is certainly clear you are a dedicated and experienced volunteer who is doing a lot of helpful edits. But while we have to be vigilant regarding spam or other illegal uploads, we also have to be careful not to delete good images (and using correct templates). If you wish, we can discuss images on a case by case basis, but I do think they are anything but clear cut no-sources. -- 07:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC) (that was me, Piotrus, editing from a public computer)
      • I am posting here again since there have been reverts in file space without discussion anywhere that need to be addressed. Your attitude is not helpful, User:Jcb. At [3] instead of constructive edit summaries you are now threatening speedy deletion. This is just short of abuse of admin power - seems like you cannot produce any valid arguments, so you want to stifle discussion by deletion. (And Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion is not a toy for admins, you need to provide a valid speedy deletion rationale, which you have not done). You say on my talk that I can convert the discussion into a regular DF ([4]) but why should I do so? I identified a source. Your no source template is NOT VALID. Ditto in [5]. I explained, twice, that there is a source. You just keep reverting me without a rationale. This is a behavior not becoming of an admin; users who revert others and refuse to engage in discussion are classified on this site using a different terminology, I am afraid. If you have further concerns about this or another picture, you should not revert me without any comment, restoring the wrong template (which is what you have done several times now), but at the very least you should provide an informative edit summary (explaining why I was wrong), and ideally, if you still have concerns, since the speedy template is disputed (and by someone else then the original uploader), you should convert it to DR yourself (since you think there is a problem). I do not think there is a problem, so I see no need for a deletion discussion (or any template). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have converted File:Karel Eichler.jpg and File:8e R.A.jpg to deletion requests. Jcb seems completely sure these are copyright violations, enough to repeatedly revert other contributors and threaten speedy deletions without a correct explanation. I suggest these are used as test cases for Jcb's judgement, as there seems to be a very obvious issue that these look to be fundamentally public domain images of the type that most contributors believe are in the public interest to host on Commons and which administrators should make all reasonable efforts to avoid removal on bureaucratic grounds rather than factual grounds. -- (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

After a brief examination of the above two files I raised DRs for, I can see no good reason for Jcb to engage in revert-warring over the no source template and to threaten speedy deletion and to give warnings to the uploaders without a more detailed explanation of their actions. For an administrator, the actions on these files appear inappropriately aggressive and tendentious. I suggest other administrators experienced in the appropriate judgement of when to require hyperlinked sources and when to make a judgement about public domain material that does not need a hyperlinked source, chip in with their views. Thanks -- (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on speedy deletion tags is inappropriate, we have deletion requests for that. But I write here to make an admission: lately I've been using the "no source" tag also for sources which I believe to be blatantly incorrect, mostly uploads by newbies sourced as "own work". The reason is that the helpful script leaves an informative message, unlike {{Copyvionote}} which does not say anything specific. Nemo 10:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Refer to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Piotrus. -- (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: it would be useful if {{Disputed}} could be set up to leave similar user notifications for "low-risk" images which are likely to be public domain, or have valid sources added with a bit of research, rather than forcing the 7-day limit before deletion on everything. Maybe this is something to request on Phabricator as a change to the listed Tools? That way certain administrators would avoid getting into un-mellow spats over files that need housekeeping, but are highly unlikely to ever be real copyright problems. -- (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
yes, we need a process to improve metadata, and deletion / doubt source is not it. it is a standard of practice by some, to delete file rather than fix license or source link. this tends to undermine the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why these files couldn't have gone to DR. It's a clearer and more overt action that gives more people time to see them and fix them if possible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone except Jcb agrees. I hope that after the outcome on COM:AN, he will accept the trout-slap for his tendentious behaviour, rather than wasting everyone's time with more of the same nonsense. Based on the past record, I doubt we are going to see Jcb apologise to anybody, or even admit to doing anything wrong. -- (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been checking the categories under Category:Media without a source (the day by day cats) by taking a look at files which (visually) look like they might be PD-old or PD-gov-US. I've found that for quite some of the files I've been able to find a source with just a few clicks and found that in a lot of other cases further discussion is necessary. Often this discussion is about the licensing of the file. For example whether it is reasonable to put a pd-old template on a 1890 file. Those kinds of discussions should be dealt with using a deletion request and not a no-source-with-7-day-deletion method. By checking these categories from the last few days I've already been able to find circa 20 files which have been saved from deletion. These files are often widely used and more than 10 years old. I find it shameful that we as a community allow for such valuable (widely used) files to be deleted with so little procedure. Given that I've been able to identify the sources for an average of circa 5 files a day in these categories, and the number of 50,000 cases Jcb mentions above, I estimate that thousands of validly hosted and often valuable files have been deleted in this manner. Often these files have initially been hosted by local Wikipedia's and were later moved here. How can local Wikipedia's trust us to host their (valid) images if we throw them away without too much of an investigation. The current methods hurt Wikimedia Commons and its free content to an enormous extent. Basvb (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A very good point and indeed this is our main concern: we should take all due care to protect PD content from deletion. Having no source should NOT be an auto-deletion criteria, not where there is any reasonable doubt that a source may not be needed. Please see Template_talk:No_source_since#Valid_licence.2FPD_but_lacking_source. I think we need to develop best procedures for using no source and similar images, which clearly state that not all cases should end in deletion after 7 days. Many should be converted into deletion discussions. We also need to accept that images with no source have right to exist (if there are clearly PD otherwise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
we see a rise in use of "doubt source", and mass "doubt sources" of uploader, rather than engage on talk, or DR. because why waste time when you can semi-automatically give adversive direction. we need training in how to curate images and collaborate with uploaders. those who do not want to professionalize their conduct may need to get a goodbye. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We should open a COM:AN/U for Jcb (as I intended a few weeks before). Unfortunately Commons has not an admin-critic-system like Wikipedias and admins here are more like master of the universe. I've much more examples of this aggressive and irrational behavior, which is more like vandalism (I've evidence for this judgment). User: Perhelion 10:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
well, the problem is systemic more than an individual. the last time he got talked about at AN/U it degenerated into admin bickering. we need some training and professionalism among the admin class. there is a fundamental lack of standards of practice. will they be motivated by this case to elevate their conduct? i wish it were so, but i doubt it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_uploaded_by_VirginRedemption where JCB deleted images as "out of scope" after all the discussing parties reached consensus that the files should be kept. --Jarekt (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to halt all unsourced cross-wiki transfers[edit]

I suggest the following proposal in the light of the highly probable significant loss of Public Domain education material that the current processes for cross-wiki transfers have encouraged, and the absence of improvement to the way Commons administrators are deleting unsourced public domain files. Refer to the estimates by Basvb above, which I find highly believable.

  1. All cross-wiki bot transfers of media without explicit and verifiable sources are to stop, if necessary by blocking the relevant bot accounts if the operator is unavailable.
  2. Cross-wiki transfers by bot can only restart once a bot operator has confirmed that sources have a tested verification process. This need not require hyperlinks, but sources must be verifiable and reliable, such as standard source book references.
  3. Rejected cross-wiki transfers should be marked as such, indicating on their home wiki that there is a problem with sourcing that requires a manual fix.
  4. Sources which are "own" or to a Flickr account, must be verified as by established accounts. Uploads from accounts with very few remaining uploads, or accounts that are blocked or banned, should not be considered "established".

Note that the community will need to agree some numbers for what "established" should be, just to help out the bot operators decide how to do the checks. Thanks -- (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I doubt whether the new uploading of unsourced images is the real problem here. In this query (other cat) you can find an overview of the years in which the files in Category:Images without source have been uploaded, there you can see that the bulk of the images is older than a few years. That doesn't mean that I oppose your idea, I simply think that we should not forget to focus (as well) on the images that are already here and which need attention. We should be able to find a less destructive way to deal with this backlog. Basvb (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I would not be against moving all unsourced transfers back to their 'home' wiki, regardless of age, and not moving them back until they have been reviewed correctly. As has been said, these mass deletions of public domain media files uploaded in good faith, do not help the reputation of Commons one bit. -- (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
the problem is that some of these are ancient, and the transfers are semi-automatic without regard to source. and the broken transfer process breaks what little sourcing is there, i.e. changing author to transfer bot. and the wiki may have a different view about sourcing, i.e. we had the case of the person who bought a copyright release with the print and uploaded to english, and then the files were transfered, and deleted on english, and then later deleted on commons when the paperwork was not otrs'ed years later. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Moving files back to the home wiki is impossible in the case of e.g. sv-wp, which has no local repository. And the files moved back would not be usable elsewhere. We also have truly problematic files uploaded on projects other than Commons, which should be deleted here instead of left on the original project. So, the problems have to be solved here.
Even verifying the source does not help, as some administrators place absurd burden on the source. One example linked above included the requirement that an anonymous photographer should be proved anonymous or otherwise the death year of the probably 90+ years old photographer found. In another, "Private collection" was not enough as source, as that would not allow proving the copyrigt status (which above is stated as a requirement for the "source").
In an earlier case, the link being dead and the file not available at the source anymore was reason for deletion (the administrator suggested the verification scheme should have been used – is it really used for places like governmental web sites?).
I think the problem is our having very different views on how much evidence we should have to keep an image, the function of the source information, and when the no nource since template should be used. The views should be consolidated, with adinistrators stopping with these deletions until we reach consensus.
--LPfi (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Jcb from using the 'no source' template for six months[edit]

While we consider procedural and policy changes, the vast majority of problems in applying the {{no source}} template in the last few months can be sourced to the actions of one user, Jcb. In the light of this administrator's tendentious edit-warring and highly inappropriate and incompetent use of the administrator tools in relation to their aim to mark for deletion files that have been automatically flagged as unsourced, regardless of the fact of whether sources are in the description, or the image page history, or whether the image is very clearly out of copyright so need not be deleted. Many contributors no longer have any trust in Jcb to apply this template or to use the admin tools to delete files affected. Refer to the history on AN for background. Banning Jcb from using this template need not affect their valued volunteer efforts on other backlogs.

I am raising this proposal on the Village Pump, due to people recently affected by Jcb's actions not all following the discussions about Jcb that have been raised on administrator noticeboards, including several serious admonishments from fellow administrators that Jcb has ignored. For this reason it seems more representative to gain a sense of consensus here, where more non-administrators may take part.

Please add a support or oppose below; I suggest raising longer comments, discussion and discussion of specific cases in a sub-section.


Jcb is to be banned from using the {{no source}} template on any image for six months. Should Jcb continue to use this template, or any variation of it, their account will be subject to a series of escalating blocks.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. -- (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. due to second oppose vote below There's no reason to try to take sysop tools one at a time from a sysop. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as currently drafted. This ban would be incompatible with Jcb's duties as an administrator, so there would need to be discussion about whether or not a de-sysop request is justified in the circumstances. Nick (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is incompatible. Refraining from using this template is not part of sysop tools and Jcb could raise DRs or use the {{disputed}} template as more collegiate alternatives to achieve precisely the same objective. Sorry to say this, but being an administrator does not give you a free pass from responsibilities that would be enforced for non-admin accounts, this is explicitly stated in COM:Administrators. The continual deferring of corrective action until things have got so bad we must have a desysop vote is a simple form of the Super Mario effect, giving Jcb special immunity because they have sysop rights, rather than treating the account in the same way as we would for any non-administrator account. -- (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand, if any administrator was to be barred from performing a less complicated task, such as tagging files as having no source, it raises the obvious problem about whether they can be trusted to have continued access to the administrator toolset. The question is thus - is Jcb's conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Nick (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • if a user misuses a tool, then maybe a tool timeout is warranted. conduct is separate from trust. (just ask doc james) the all or nothing mindset is part of the problem. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The {{no source}} means no source, not an admin thinking the source is wrong. The latter requires explanation and probably discussion, so COM:DR is the right way in this case. And, source is not required if it is not necessary to resolve the copyright status. If, as it is suggested in previous opinion, using {{no source}} is an admin tool, I would consider this situation as misuse of admin tool. Nominating for deletion because the uploader made a little mistake (and even without notifying the real uploader) does not made Commons better. Ankry (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Ankry: Imagine you find a file with an obviously wrong source... say a photograph of a modern politician, whose source states "Olmec inscription"... are you saying an admin should not remove the obviously incorrect source and cannot tag it as {{no source}}? What if the source reads "Z" or "source" ? Are you saying if it was not literally blank at the time of upload, it cannot be tagged "no source" and should go through DR? Storkk (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @Storkk: Removing absolutely bogus source information is OK to me. But I do not think that adding {{no source}} is OK if a source information (even bogus) is present or if it is misplaced or when copyright status can be determined without a source. And something totaly meaningless for one person may be clear for another (eg. "Source = s.25" (or "p.25")) may be clear information if it is stated in the description that it is an image from a specified book. IMO, it is better to let somebody else to look at it in a DR if any doubts or, especially, if the uploader is not or cannot be easily notified (bot upload/cross-wiki upload).
And please note, we are not talking about desysoping (I appreciate Jcb's work in other fields). This is just suggestion to avoid a specific template (he would be still free to create DR's, delete files, prepare lists of unsourced files for other admins' review, etc.) Ankry (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: I was trying to clarify your statement that "{{no source}} means no source, not an admin thinking the source is wrong". I have often done exactly that, and as long as we agree that bogus information doesn't count, then I think we're discussing a matter of perception rather than clear black and white. IMO this points further towards my suggestion below of changing policy to nobody using {{no source}} on files over a certain age. Storkk (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe it's better to discuss these issues with Jcb and on COM:AN/U, not in the main village pump. Such a discussion could (should IMO) include both the administrative tools as well as tagging files without a source. In this stage I still hope that a discussion indicating that some working methods are considered harmful (by a broad range of users) and a short cool down on the side of Jcb to consider his methods are a solution. However for that to work Jcb needs to involve himself in the discussions concerning his working methods. I understand that this is not easy to do and that the current discussion can feel like an attack on ones person. However the current working methods: tagging files with doubts about the validity of the source or license as having no source (there are sources, but Jcb doesn't agree with them, often correctly, sometimes incorrectly) as well as blocking/deleting users/files with which Jcb has an issue/nominated himself, are harming our project. Basvb (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. I have not seen suitable evidence of widespread "incompetence" presented here. Instead users have cherry-picked a handful of images they contest. A quick glance at Fae's talk page and archives will reveal thousands of his uploaded images posted for DR. Are we to conclude Fae is "incompetent" wrt copyright or scope issues and should be banned from uploading for six months, or consider that in the light of the couple of million uploads he's done. I'll assume the same for now of Jcb, who is rather active as an admin unlike some we've discussed recently, unless we have clear evidence that he gets it wrong too frequently. Seems to me Jcb is being made a scapegoat for the huge backlog of unexamined uploads and for poorly written bots that lose information. Perhaps he needs additional help in examining these files with poor/no sources rather than a constant stream of attacks. Images that are not reliably documented with a source and evidence of their free licence or PD are worthless to our re-users. -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mostly per Colin. I'd support a change in policy, though, to confine {{nsd}} and {{npd}} to files younger than, say, 6 months. Storkk (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh come on. Months of tagging PD works that have been here for years and can be easely fixed only to delete them yourself 7 days later isn's widespread incompetence? Tagging complex cases for months which should go to a DR isn's widespread incompetence? We don't need a policy change merely because one user abuses the tagg. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Natuur12 I've seen the noticeboard posts. What's the ratio of success to failure? And how much better would the next average admin do (given that nobody's perfect). What we've got here looks like someone commenting on all the dead bodies coming out of a hospital and concluding that it should be shut down. How many images does Jcb investigate and locate/fix sources or correct licence tags? How many are correctly tagged and deleted? How much effort are people expecting an admin to spend investigating each image. For example, 10 minutes work per image for 1000 images is 16 weeks at two hours a day, five days a week. Is there a particular class of image that is a problem (e.g. PD old). Is the problem the tag or the fact that it serves a 7 day death sentence on images where the uploader is no longer active -- in that case, the community needs to revise the procedures so we know the steps/policy that applies to everyone. There was an attempt at something like this before, but it confused procedural policy with hosting policy. Natuur12, perhaps you could mediate because it seems clear Jcb won't talk to Fae. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) I see it differently... is there really any reason to use {{nsd}} or {{npd}} on old images? I don't see a major drawback to confining them to young files. I have used those templates on older files, and always felt a little uncomfortable doing so, because the whole point of the templates is to get the original uploader to fix the error while things are fresh... what percentage of uploaders from ~2 years ago are even still active? Why not just put them through a DR, where they are more easily seen by a wider variety of people, and can be referred back to by non-admins, and are also much less likely to cause contention. I see Jcb's actions apparently much less black-and-white than you or Fae. I see a difference in interpretation of "source" requirements, perhaps mistaken, and perhaps pursued overly enthusiastically. I agree that these all probably shouldn't have been tagged {{nsd}} ... but IMO neither should other old files. That's where I think the appropriate remedy lies here, I don't see a sanctionable offence. And I'm not shocked that Jcb has made some errors, nor should you be. Maybe he should slow down a bit - but that's a totally different discussion, and not one I would participate in. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @Colin: Please see the post made by Basvb at 18:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC) for some estimated numbers. He should just slow down and take more time investigating images. Having no backlog at no permission, no source and deletion request is nice but if Jcb and INC would just slow down a bit other admins would have a change to help. I used to close some series of deletion requests in the evening for example but because they are rushing through our backlogs there is nothing left. If Jcb would slow down in that area he would have more time to investigate the sources.
He is blocking people he gets in conflict with, behaving dickish when people complain about deletions, taggings etc, not responding to questions and complaints from his fellow admins. I am not sure if we can resolve this. Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok I see that post now, though it only looks at tagged files, not really easy to work out how many files Jcb examined and (a) decided were fine or (b) corrected or added sources or licence fixes to. I agree there is an issue with Jcb not participating in these discussions, though I suspect that's partly because fae keeps starting them and various people are itching to remove his admin bit. So we have a communication problem. But we also have a general problem with the procedure whereby tagged images always get deleted 7 days later, and everyone here seems to think that should only happen for newly uploaded files, whereas older files should presumably go onto some DR or backlog pile for people to work through. I do agree with you that it isn't good for any admin to be over productive. Perhaps fixing our procedural policy would be the least confrontational approach? -- Colin (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jcb's recent actions made me worried that all files that were uploaded years ago will be deleted blindly just because it lacks a source or the source provided is not sufficient. And their block of Piotrus is also inappropriate, so that's why I am no longer trusting this admin anymore. -- Poké95 13:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • File:800px-Oceanie2.png. The file is confusingly both released into Public Domain and GFDL. This was created by User:Domaleixo who was blocked permanently in 2012 for copying the illustrations out of books. Seems like someone needs to investigate why his other uploads are still not deleted. We've been illegally using this file since 2007. There's even an SVG created from it.
  • File:866corregidor map.jpg. This claims PD US GOV and was uploaded by en:User:Celebrity historian. That user hasn't been active since September 2006. Their talk page is full of messages, since August 2006, about the lack of sourcing for their images. So clearly there has been a known problem with this person's images since 2006 yet it was transferred to Commons in 2009. That's indicative of a systemic problem with Commons accepting material other wikis already know isn't acceptable.
  • File:86th BCT.jpg. Another PD US GOV. Uploaded by en:User:Mikeofv who is still active on Wikipedia but has not been notified that their image lacks a source. This has been discussed before -- the wikipedia transfer bot has been notified instead!
So this is a bigger problem than just Jcb, and we are failing to notice (and thank) Jcb for helping to delete content (like the first one of three above) that we've been hosting illegally for nearly a decade. There's definitely a problem here, with Jcb, with transfer bots, with tag->delete processes, with the user notification mechanism, but also a big problem with Commons hosting material and Wikipedia using material illegally and which nobody is removing in a timely manner. -- Colin (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think we should stop accepting automated transfers where the original uploader is no longer active (less than 10 edits in the last 90 days, or some other metric) ?
I'd also suggest we shouldn't be allowing automated transfers where the original uploader is now blocked/banned on their home/source wiki. I mention automated uploads - manual transfer with careful analysis of the images would of course continue to be permitted/encouraged. Nick (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see User:Basvb/nosource for an investigation of all the files tagged no-source on the 15th of October by Jcb. Of course the conclusions are influenced by my personal opinion, but I believe it gives a good overview of an average day and relevant percentages. On the other hand Jcb has indicated on my talk page (in Dutch) that he is reading the discussions and takes into account the feedback. I think the considerations on the files from the 15th of October shows that often the cases are more complicated than should be handled using a simple no-source tag. Limiting the no-source tag (and maybe the same for similar tags meant to warn users) for files uploaded in the last 1-3 years seems like a good solution to me. Older files can often benefit from a broader discussion via a DR. Basvb (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's worth looking for no source + PD licenses where it becomes easy to see obvious PD files, such as reproductions of works more than 200 years old or where the source is given in the description, it's just not a hyperlink. The report is, but most problematic files have been removed in the last few hours. When the error rate is greater than 10% then the process is not working, so it's interesting to read through Basvb's analysis which shows there was only a 50/50 chance that a templated file was suitable for speedy deletion once scrutinized by other volunteers. -- (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Basvb, very helpful, with the limitations you point out. And I note your comment "investing so much time for all images is not something that I expect to be reasonable". We must remember that for those tagged no source by Jcb, there are many others left untouched, or source added, or licence corrected, or sent to DR, etc, etc. The practical element of this must be considered: if people are uploading unreliable images faster than our admins can review them, say, then our repository will fill with cruft that makes it very useless for re-users. Nick, I don't know the details of the transfer bots. It seems some wikis are not doing their job wrt checking images, so perhaps we need to consider those wikis are utterly unreliable and thus every image transferred must be examined by a human. There was an earlier attempt by Fae to change the policy wrt this template leading to deletion, but it suggested changing our precautionary principle hosting policy, which was completely the wrong focus. I see no need to change our hosting policies but a desperate need to change our procedural ones wrt this template. As has been widely pointed out, for files we have hosted for years, the assumption that the uploader can rapidly fix the issue does not hold. Either that uploader has gone or the tool isn't correctly picking up the Wikipedian who uploaded it and so is templating the transfer bot. I would support a change to our procedures that prevent files older than 1 year, say, being automatically deleted for "no source", though that obviously requires some commitment from admins to do more DR.
I would also be interested if the same analysis could be done for other editors adding nosource tags (I saw Hedwig and Ellin in the category I looked at, perhaps there are others). My guess is that a second pair of eyes on these images may also demonstrate more than Fae's 10% error rate threshold (error being that the file probably shouldn't be speedied, which is Basvb's analysis, rather than being that the file shouldn't be deleted). It's simply a contentious area whether an image is "obviously" lacking necessary evidence or is "probably" lacking the necessary evidence and users will disagree. We can't design a perfect system. Other pragmatic suggestions might be that a file that is in-use must go to DR. Both changes could surely be handled by the tool detecting the upload/tranfer date and also the in-use on other projects links. There clearly aren't enough people doing this job, if we've hosted many deletionable images for nearly a decade, so we need to improve the system to target those files most likely to be faulty and to take extra care with those files most likely to harm our project if wrongly deleted. Simply demanding perfection (or eliminating a user who is generally doing a useful job) will only make the backlog grow and we'll be hosting these files illegally for another decade. I'm glad to see comments that Jcb is reading this and considering it, so I hope we see a more cautious approach to using this tag in future. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i've long been concerned with the projection of black and white, when for me, there is a lot of gray area, and a lot of low risk items. this conduct is impacting the reputation of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With the caveat that nothing I have seen since I first encounter Jcb on Monday makes me believe he is suited to be an admin, and I'd support removing sysop privileges, since he has abused not only the template in question, but also other more important tools, such as the block button (which was used to silence me for no other reason then I disagreed with him; I have yet to receive a single word of apology from that user). Further, the fact that the editor has not even bothered to explain him/herself here suggests to me that they still believe they did nothing wrong (and perhaps can do no wrong...), and that all of our talk here is meaningless fuming. Several editors have suggested that this should be discussed at COM:AN/U and whatever the outcome of this discussion here, I think it should be continued there (and if it is, I'd appreciate a ping). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jcb does "an important work", but I say only COM:Forum #Quellenangabe bei Wappen / amtlichen Werken…. He deleted (SVG) images with source (reference) and also don't replaced the SVG with the JPG source on deletion (without deletion log), although mentioned and pinged. User: Perhelion 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: I was skepical at first, about this sectorial, temporary taking away of admin tools. But seems that it is feasable, judging from some of the above, so I join the chorus: This will prevent further deletions of important material. Faulty file pages should, of course, be improved, and actual copyvios should be deleted. -- Tuválkin 20:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fix the technical issues if any. An admin need to be trusted to use all tools available to do his duties. If the trust is compromised, go for de-admin. Jee 03:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Adding a "no source" template is not a sysop tool. Poké95 05:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
    Who said its a sysop tool? Read carefully. Jee 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Also Symbol support vote.svg Support de-admin. Why? Frequent incivility. On top of all the comments I see here and have noticed elsewhere:
Pictogram voting info.svg Info A request was raised at Administrator's noticeboard for an administrator to close this proposal at 08.29, 28th October. Views added after the request may have been attracted because of it. Thanks -- (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have just deleted half a dozen images marked "no source" by Jcb. I have also kept two. As far as I am concerned that is a very much more than acceptable ratio. Even if his "no source" nominations were wrong 80% of the time -- which is nowhere near the case -- bringing problems to our attention is a good thing. I think the problem is that when you do as much work on Commons as Jcb does, there inevitably are mistakes and, since he does more than all but one of us, he makes more mistakes even though his error rate (as measured by successful DRs and UnDRs) is lower than average.
A suggestion, that might eliminate some of the problem. Now that our DR backlog is under control (thanks in large part to INC and Jcb - 60% of deletions are their work) perhaps the active Admins could go to work on Category:Images without source which has 52,000 images in it. We probably need a new template to put in the "Source=" line which will keep the bot from adding them to this category. I would suggest something like "reviewed by license reviewer or administrator x and found to be OK even though there is no stated source). On the other hand, I see at least half a dozen image on the first page of the category that ought to either be {{Speedy}} or {{Delete}}. And, of course, there are many there where the source is in the description line and the bot can't find it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the raw numbers point, you used a very small sample to come to an opinion. The statistics like yours of 2/8 were keeps may seem of marginal concern, but once we are talking a failure rate of 20% to 25% in 1,000 or 50,000 deletions, that's an unacceptable failure rate which loses a significant number of valuable public domain images from Commons. If you check the prior discussion around stats, this used a slightly different sample space. I assert that based on my using searches like this, limiting the statistics to deletions where there were public domain licence templates on the images will yield a much higher rate, like 50% being keeps, which then becomes weak enough to let a simple bot take care of the backlog. As you have sysop rights and can analyse deleted images, it would be very useful if you could do some analysis along these lines for images which Jcb has deleted in the past, rather than analysing just those which have not yet been deleted. -- (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If we're going to fling imaginary numbers around based on random guesses of error rates, 1,000 "no source" deletions with an imaginary 20% error rate is 800 violations of our COM:PRP and a substatial number of these will be copyright violations. So while some might weep for the imaginary 200 images that might have been saved given an imaginary number of imaginarily productive admins spening an imaginary number of hours of investigations, it is very likely that a much larger number of images are being illegally hosted by Commons and published on Wikipedia against the wishes of a large number of very not-imaginary photographers and artists.
This whole topic should have been conducted as a discussion on how the community best deal with the issue and to come up with consensus on best practice, policy changes and procedural changes. Instead, it is started as yet another attack on Jcb. Can we just stop the personal attacks for a while and discuss this complex area without trying to ban someone or encourage a whole lot of pile-on spleen-venting by people who aren't offering any solutions or to volunteer to spend their evenings doing it any better. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly oppose: I think Colin made some very valid points above and also Jameslwoodward. Let's get back to work and stop personal attacks on others. Period. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ellin Beltz just to note, you now have two votes listed. Offnfopt(talk) 17:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Struck through the top one, only one opppose remains. Thanks for pointing that out. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jcb's actions, on a range of topics, have been bureaucratic, combative to other editors, and have lost sight of the project's broader goals. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Briefly, this is not the way to solve this. If Jcb can't be trusted to use the template correctly, then he can't be trusted as an admin, and any issue with using nsd 'carelessly' goes beyond just him. I've just converted a file from nsd to a DR, that was marked by a different admin, uploaded in 2006, where the name of the uploader and the stated 'author' were identical, the file was licensed as {{PD-self}} at upload, and there was no apparent external use other than mirrors. If it's a fault in 'using' the template, which it seems to be, it's also a fault in the admin who actually pushes the button without checking carefully. We need to 'all' be more careful about checking things for obvious solutions other than deletion. Reventtalk 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Hear, hear. - Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Revent. - Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • you keep talking about trust, and all or nothing. you do of course understand that there are GLAMs who do not trust commons to keep their images, and who use flickr where images do not get deleted? where is your solution? where is your culture change? where is your standard of practice? this "trust the admins" is wholly inadequate: no one does. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 09:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Jim and Revent. Wikicology (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same reasons as stated by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs). The Yeti 08:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Wikimedia Commons works because the people in our community deeply care. Jcb, I am sorry that you see Fae's proposal as harassment but I can boldly tell you that this wasn't Fae's intention. Please, see any constructive criticisms here as useful feedback. I understand that this could be frustrating at times but we just have to deal with it. However, I think we should take a calm, loving, and reasonable approach in this situation. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors. I can't determine the extent of damage this user's errors might have caused the project but I know they meant well. If the community no longer trust Jcb with the admin tool, someone can initiate a de-adminship process. I don't see this proposal as a solution to the underlying issues. In fact, I don't think any Crat will be ready to close this thread to enforce the proposed ban. I think this thread should be closed as "No consensus" for now. If anyone is willing to start a de-admin process, of course that is welcomed! All the best. Wikicology (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Jim, Colin, and Revent. Yann (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is a template for photos from a library archive a good idea?[edit]

I was reading an academic article on increasing the discoverability of library resources through Wikipedia (, probably behind a paywall, sorry, but the user who wrote it was probably TejasDiscipulus~commonswiki). They recommended using a template on photos to make copyright clear and to tell other users where they could get higher-resolution copies of images, as in [[File:Cloche_hat_Walker_Photograph_cropped.jpg]]. I work for a university and I'd like to get more of our images on the Commons. Is this image actually using a template? It looks like they weren't really consistent with using it either--do you have any specific recommendations? I looked into batch downloading but unfortunately our content management system, contentdm, doesn't provide individual image URLs, so I will most likely be uploading photos manually (though I'm still looking into batch uploading from files). Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Best practice for works in a reference collection, really, is to use {{artwork}} or {{photograph}}, that both allow for information about the holding institution, accession numbers, and a 'credit line' if needed for specific works. As far as the actual copyright, when possible a 'specific' public domain license template should be used, that gives the actual rationale for the particular work being PD. For information that you'll be repeating often, you can either create a custom 'template' that you transclude from your user space, as if it was an actual template, or substitute the content of a page from your user page, that can then be edited as needed for the specific file. It does not look like the uploader of that image actually did either, but instead just pasted the text into the pages when uploading.
The license on that image isn't really correct, either, I don't think... UofH apparently scanned the photographic negative, but that does not make them the 'author' of the image... a mere scan does not involve original authorship that creates a new copyright. The author of that image was apparently Harry Walker... UofH seems to believe the original image is PD, possibly due to a donation agreement, but the rationale for that isn't really clear. Reventtalk 04:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The article does not appear to actually be paywalled, btw.... reading now. Reventtalk 04:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It's actually not bizarre that the archive would hold the copyright to their holdings; during my intro-to-archives class in library school, taught by the director of archives, it was strongly suggested that all deed-of-gift contracts include a grant of all donor-owned copyright to the holding institution. The point is to ensure that the institution is as free as possible to use their holdings as they wish. Presumably in this case, UoH decided to say "If this image is still under copyright, we release it", and while not the right template, PD-author basically got the point across. Do we have a PD-release template meant for use when the author granted copyright to another party, which is the one giving the release? {{PD-self}} is meant for uploader-created works, not uploader-owned works that someone else created and sold/donated to the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I didn't mean it was 'bizarre', just that I could not identify the specific rationale that UofH was using, from what I saw.... they don't specify, but a clause in the donation paperwork is indeed likely. There are 'sample forms' for such deeds-of-gift, such as [6], that include such language.
AFAIK, we don't explicitly have such a generic tag, but {{PD-self}} (which claims 'ownership of the copyright', instead of actual authorship) is probably closest. For specific cases there are the tags in Category:No known restrictions license tags, most of which cover the exact situation for specific Library of Congress collections and rely on {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}... creating such a tag for other GLAMs that intended to do large donations of such material would probably be best. Reventtalk 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I initially saw it as bizarre when first encountering the concept, so I thought perhaps you or others might see it that way too. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
best practice would be to have a rights statement per photo collection per the LOC i.e. [7] image metadata is made machine readable using "templates" - the box with the information on the image page. use photograph or artwork template which allows a separate author and artist / photographer. UH using information template has a conflict with photographer = Walker, Harry and author = University of Houston Libraries. the increased visibility is how commons images appear in search engines, while institutional page may not; and use in wikipedia increases visibility and click through.
you can upload using the other template using the old uploader [8] or commons:pattypan.
User:Rachel Helps (BYU) touch base with GLAM volunteer User:Todrobbins, or m:The Wikipedia Library User:Astinson (WMF) can hook you up. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 10:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all the information! I'm familiar with Todrobbins. I'm still working out how to get access to the files themselves, but my hope is to use the Pattypan uploader with the metadata we have. I want to upload our Charles Savage collection of photographs, which is in the public domain. Would it make more sense to use {{PD-1923}}, or to make a new category specific to the collection? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Galleries from the point of view of visitors[edit]


A visitor at English Wikipedia Vending machine clicks "Commons media". He arrives at Vending machine. He thinks "Okay. Those are all the images of vending machines Commons has." He does not notice the "Category (+): Vending machines" at the bottom. Maybe he notices it, but does not understand that clicking it will lead to hundreds of other vending machine images. After all, it does say "Category (+): Vending machines". Why would he?

He closes the page. Bye bye.


If that scenario is experienced by even 10% of people who click the commons link from Wikipedia, it is too high. I suspect that number is 90%+. Don't believe me? Get your kids, friends, or significant others over to the computer. Show them the Wikipedia vending machine page and point out the Commons link. Ask them to find the images. I did. All of them arrived at the gallery and said "There you go." I even said "Is that it?" They all said "Yes." Try it. You can even point to the "Category (+): Vending machines" in the end and say "Look!" They will respond "Yes. I see it. It is telling us what is on this page. What is your point?"

I never quite liked the idea of galleries. But, when they serve as an outdated dead end, they really seem like a net negative.

So, why don't we have a big, fat link at the top saying "More." or something? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree and Symbol support vote.svg Support! --Atlasowa (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, when a gallery corresponds to a category, making a link to the corresponding category more visible on the gallery pages would be useful. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There's already a template for that, {{Catmain}}, used for example on Museum. --ghouston (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to make a more prominent template if desired. w:Museum links in the sidebar to the category, not the gallery, so it seems the issue can be avoided anyway. --ghouston (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, not really. The link at the bottom of the Vending machine article arrives at the Vending machine gallery via the search function on Commons. You get the same result if you enter "Vending machine" directly into the search box, so it's not easily avoided without changing how search works. --ghouston (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The category link in the sidebar comes from the Commons category property in the Wikidata item. It's nice, but it's not as visible as the link at the bottom. Also, I don't know if that property is assigned everywhere that it could be. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree I agree about galleries not being as useful as categories. That's why I sometimes change the templates in Wikipedia articles to the ones that point to categories. If there's a fairly conspicuous way to let a gallery viewer know more media is just a click away, that can only be good. I wonder if there's a way to do that without editing every gallery page. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Another reason that galleries get created is that people want to link Wikipedia articles to Commons stuff in Wikidata, and there's a policy to link categories to categories, and galleries to articles. I think some galleries got created just so those links could be made. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the best policy now is to go ahead and link categories in Commons with main Wikidata items. It gives the best results, and people seem to have given up complaining about it on Wikidata. --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but which kind of link do you mean? You can link a Commons category to a non-category Wikidata item using the Commons category statement; that makes a link in the sidebar of the Wikipedia articles, and I don't think anyone ever complained about that because that's its purpose. You can also link a Commons page (gallery or category) in a Wikidata item of either type under "Other sites"; I don't think that appears in Wikipedia, but this is the one that got the complaints. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It's the site links that I meant. The software is set up for those, you just click on "Edit links" and link it. Then you get the language links and the Wikidata link in the sidebar and a Commons link in the sidebar of the wikipedias. If it fails because a gallery already has a site link, then I use {{Interwiki from wikidata}} instead. --ghouston (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I Symbol keep vote.svg agree, too. I’d say that most “galleries” (pages) are garbage, mostly contentless, or containing unmantained and obsolete haphazard galleries, often created long ago as a clone of the wp:en article (or as a draft for it, or even as a “safe haven” for stuff deleted in wp:en as OR). We’d do a great favour to Commons by deleting them all. The undue focus they get for being in the main name space (which is anything by “main” in Commons, unlike in Wikipedias) and due to the ass-backwards way Wikidata links Commons to Wikipedias makes this not a mere annoyance (like, say, the presence of a fat million or two of off scope files) but, as explained above (thanks, Anna!), a serious obstacle to the useability of Commons. -- Tuválkin 09:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • What do you propose to do with pages like Seattle and the Orient, into which I put painstaking effort? Categories will never substitute for that. Similarly, Seattle seems very useful, digging deep down into subcategories for a good, rounded view, whereas Category:Seattle is almost a metacat. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I guess there'd be no consensus to delete these galleries. I think we should investigate if the search engine could be modified so that galleries are either excluded from the default results or somehow ordered below everything else. --ghouston (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Or at least don't come up as a default result: e.g., searching for "London" opens the London gallery right away, and you get no chance to pick anything else. --ghouston (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Jmabel, apologies for the late reply: Concerning Wikimedia Commons pages/galleries/articles which are not garbage (and thanks for those two interesting examples), in most cases their contents should be (i.m.h.o.) either moved to the respective Wikipedia (the English one, in most cases) or to the synonym category — even when, or especially when, that category is a {{metacat}}, {{catcat}}, or subject to {{Categorise}}). Note that many such categories include much more than a terse two-line description of their contents, but rather a more or less sophisticated interface for the user to navigate in their subcat tree — there is even a special category for them. This is a radical solution, which would allow to fully kill off the “article” namespace in Wikimedia Commons. Alternatively, and less radically, to your question of what I propose I can only say: Let’s delete the garbage and keep the good stuff — but that’s what we do as par for the course, no need to discuss a new approach to get rid of the extraordinarily high noise-to-signal ratio in the main namespace — just need to work harder on it. -- Tuválkin 12:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, en-wiki doesn't welcome stuff like these (after all, they aren't encyclopedia articles) so that's not an option. And it seems to me that something like the content of Seattle would terribly clog the category page. The problem, to put it simply, is that most galleries people have created here are crap. A good gallery takes almost as much work as a Wikipedia article, but most people try to knock them off in 30 minutes. By the way, here's another example of one I did that I'm very proud of Romanian Orthodox churches in Bucharest. I've already found it of enormous value myself in identifying what church someone had photographed when they uploaded an under-described picture of a Romanian Orthodox church in Bucharest - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the fine idea (so: I Symbol keep vote.svg agree, as well) and pointing to the already existing template {{Maincat}} (where you can find an example with additional use of {{Cat see also}}):
There must be an issue with Wikidata. For me pinging doesn’t work in the moment, so it would be kind, if someone of you, for whom it works, would do a {{ping|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)}}, the Wikidata product manager. What’s the issue? I noticed this one recently while working on a file: We have here a gallery/page Paul Fürst and the cat Category:Paul Fürst; from page in dewiki, which is de:Paul Fürst (Kunsthändler), you will be on the left side linked to the page, not the cat, exactly like in Anna’s case above. Take also a look on the Wikidata entry for Paul Fürst d:Q2059687; there is both the Commons category property (P373, not surprisingly named as “Commons category”) and the link to the gallery page (in “Other Websites”). But from de:Potsdam (I accidently knew it, because this is my home town) and as I see now also from en:Potsdam the left side link goes to the cat Category:Potsdam, though also the gallery Potsdam exists here. Now looking on the Wikidata entry d:Q1711 you again will find the Commons cat property and the gallery link in “Other Websites”.
— Speravir_Talk – 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
On de:Paul Fürst (Kunsthändler), I think {{Commons|Paul Fürst}} on the page is causing the default Wikidata link (to the category) to be replaced with a gallery link. --ghouston (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I don’t think so, because in de:Potsdam there is also a {{Commons|Potsdam}}. — Speravir_Talk – 23:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I fixed it. --ghouston (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I added a "Commons gallery (P935)" property to the Wikidata item, then null-edited the German article. It's strange that that would help actually. --ghouston (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't the edits themselves, but the update to the pages flushing something out. --ghouston (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. BTW you didn't mention, that the edits were for Paul Fürst. Yes, this property has already existed in Potsdam’s Wikidata page. But for me this is odd and I think, it would still be useful to ping Lydia, as I asked earlier. — Speravir_Talk – 00:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Here you go: @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, although I can't see why it would make any difference who copies that text into the page. --ghouston (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'll have a closer look when I am back from vacation in a few days. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Boilerplate text at the top of every category that reads "For more media, see Category:BASEPAGENAME" or somesuch would definitely be helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I suggest we create a new version of {{Maincat}}, call it {{Maincat header}} or something. It would be like Maincat, but will take only a single category as an argument, and say something like "This gallery contains selected items from Category:Foo and perhaps its subcategories.". It can be formatted as a box, given translations to other languages and added manually to galleries as required. --ghouston (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree There are some useful galleries, but in my experience Seattle and the Orient linked above was the first that I encountered. I would support every single change making categories more visible and galleries less visible Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Lotje (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Global autopatrol right[edit]

See meta:Wikimedia Forum#Global autopatrolled. Filemovers here replace usages of files with their own accounts and admins often do the same when processing duplicates. For trusted users there's really no need for these edits to be patrolled on other wikis. I personally have autopatrol on 16 different wikis. Anyone with rollback on 16 wikis would be an easy candidate for global rollback, and anyone with deletion tagging, etc, on half that many wikis would be a candidate for global sysop. Global autopatrol seems like a good idea for experienced Commons filemovers and active admins who do filemoves and/or process duplicates on a regular basis. lNeverCry 06:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

i think you will find other wikis do not trust commons admins, but hey go for it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I have good relations with people at several wikis. I'm sure you get a mixed bag when it comes to trust all the way around. This also includes filemovers remember, so you would be eligible for this right yourself. My interest here is in avoiding unneeded pending changes/patrolling work, etc. They've found a way to make global rollback and sysop work, so maybe this will work out. Or maybe we'll go on as we have. I'm certainly going to keep renaming files, and if I remain non-autopatrolled on many wikis, that will create one more edit a reviewer has to check. I've got 17 autopatrols on different wikis, and that will increase with time. Not a big deal either way. I think Commons has some great admins personally, some of the best around. I'm a bit biased though... lNeverCry 10:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
ask you good relations what the reputation of commons is on other wikis, you may be surprised. [9], [10] Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I've opposed, thanks for highlighting the vote. It comes down to the choice of whether Wikimedia Commons has any say over how rights on this project are to be handled here. This decision to globalize will happen on meta with no vote on this wiki about changes to rights here. As with the loss of a local OTRS flag, these small changes to globalize rights erode the project's self-determinism or self-governance as rights holders are not held to account here, or against the policies here, the same place where they are exercising those rights. -- (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Canadian copyright[edit]

Could you please tell me if this photo can be uploaded to the Commons? The copyright information on the website located here states that it is covered by "Creative Commons Licenses". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The website states that the images are all rights reserved, unless otherwise specified. This means that the image may only be uploaded if a free license is explicitly stated. --rimshottalk 21:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
And it ain't. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

October 31[edit]

Numerical sorting[edit]

Is there a specific reason that the Commons community didn't request the new meta:Community Tech/Numerical sorting in categories feature? Because of the numbered bulk uploads ("File 1, File 2, ...") it happens quite often that the files are in the "File 1, File 11, File 2, ..." order in the categories. Samat (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

See discussion in May 2016 archive. Commons manages well using alphabetic order and for the few uploads that benefit from numerically sorted names, we should be using leading zeros or use the sort key. There are plenty of examples, the most recent of mine is Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng. -- (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree, but accept this :) Thank you for your answer, Samat (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say the only person who opposed the suggested change by User:Johan (WMF) is Fae. The rest of the community went "meh". So if you don't agree, your opinion is valid and would be welcome to start a discussion to gain consensus for change. Requiring users to prefix numbers with 0 like 01 or 0001 so they sort properly is silly, and only something computer hackers would accept. Having 11 sort before 2 just makes us look incompetent. -- Colin (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then a short explanation: I just didn't understand the opposition or why is this change (fixing a bug) is opt in, not opt out at all. I think that there is no disadvantage of the change but has a big advantage: the (numerical) sorting in categories would be correct without any hack or additional effort. (For example, if I would like to show pictures of an event using the slideshow feature, the time order is wrong now without leading zeros or sort keys.) If I forgot to use leading zeros, I shouldn't rename the files according to the policy. The only way to solve the problem (which would not exist after the bug fix) using sort keys for every pictures and for every categories. I can do this easily using my bot, but I am wondering why is this solution better than doing nothing and enjoy that the software works. Samat (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Computer users/programmers only learned to put leading zeros in as a work-around for inadequate software. Can you imagine if someone said the system only sorts names correctly if they are the same length and I had to write __Colin so that it sorted before Richard. It's no longer the 1970s and we can expect better. I agree that WMF should just have fixed it unless it causes a bigger bug. Slideshows working correctly has to be a good reason. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
best to be truthful about the incompetence. sorting categories is something only a commons centric hacker would care about. the real editors have given up on categories and gone to wikidata. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
People like me who work mostly on categorization are “pleased” to know we’re not real editors. (Also: What’s wrong with your caps key?) -- Tuválkin 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
If I had noticed that discussion back then I would’t have went meh. For me, alpha sorthing as exemplified is not a hack nor a software bug, is how text strings should be sorted. But I can understand how other people may think otherwise and have different needs. What I’d like to see is the behaviour of category keys and sorting taylored in one’s preferences: Turning on and off keys for files and subcats, and chosing numerical vs. string sorting in cat pages — is that even possible? -- Tuválkin 03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am afraid this switch is not possible currently: the sorting has to be string or numerical sorting. But this is an interesting idea, maybe it is worth to mention for the developers (at Phabricator). Samat (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There are requests for both of these on Phabricator, I think (the use cases, I recall, are Chinese-language wikis needing multiple sort orders per category because there are multiple valid orderings of Chinese characters, and Wiktionaries needing different default sort orders in each category because they have categories with content in different languages). I could dig them up probably. It was not progressing because it would require a big schema change (right now the database tables have only one field for the sortkey per category entry) and there's quite a backlog of those built before WMF hired a real DBA, now slowly being reduced. Matma Rex (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, Samat and Matma Rex. -- Tuválkin 12:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"realistically useful for an educational purpose" - how broadly/narrowly it is defined?[edit]

I plan on uploading some photos but I want to ensure that it will be not wasted effort on uploading, reviewing and deleting it.

I want to upload series of images of bicycle parkings, something like File:Stojaki_na_Łobzowska_x_Biskupia.JPG, File:Stojaki_rowerowe_z_hulajnogami_przy_szkole_-_bis.JPG, File:Stojaki_rowerowe_z_hulajnogami_przy_szkole.JPG.

It is unlear for me how "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is applied - it may be easily argued in both directions, after all images of bicycles parkings may be used. But how many different ones from one city will be accepted? 1? 100? 10 000? Unlimited?

In the most extreme case I would upload about 1000 of similar pictures, so I prefer to ask to avoid wasted effort for everybody.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"realistically useful for an educational purpose" or COM:SCOPE are just catch all phrases that can be applied either way at the will or whim of the Admins depending on how they feel that day. Oxyman (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The above cynical statement by Oxyman is unhelpful and I would suggest disregarding it. Someone with a chip on their shoulder rarely gives worthwhile advice. I myself try my best to apply scope in an even and reasonable fashion, as do most other administrators here.

    COM:SCOPE/COM:EDUSE are usually pretty broadly defined. There are a lot of factors to consider with the images mentioned above. Quality is important, as is variety. It really comes down to the judgement of you the uploader. If you can put together 1000 images that you feel aren't repetitious, are as high as possible in quality, and give the widest possible coverage of the subject, than Commons will likely benefit from your contributions. We would want to see good coverage of the widest variety of bicycle parkings locations possible, images with good lighting, taken from different angles, and with the idea of educational use in mind. Say you had 100 bicycle parkings locations in Kraków; how many images would reasonable cover the subject? I would figure that 5 or 10 images or maybe a few more of a location would probably suffice. It would probably be hard to come up with more for each location without being repetitious.

    As for educational use, many people in Kraków use bicycles daily. It would be valuable to them to know where the nearest parkings locations to their house or work are, or to a pub or coffee shop they might meet friends at, whether the locations provide cover in case of rain, how busy the locations are, how safe the locations look, etc. That you're asking the question here before uploading tells me you're already on the right track and will likely make some valuable contributions on this subject. I patrol 1000s of images per week, and you can tell right away who is giving thought to their uploads and who is just uploading every image on their memory card or device. The three images above look good to me. I would suggest short descriptions giving the location and maybe detailing closeness to important places like universities, courts, theatres, etc, if those places aren't in the images or the street location isn't well-known. lNeverCry 10:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If I have a "chip" on my shoulder why would that be? it can only be from experience can't it? anyhow I was not giving any advice either bad or good. The poster inquired how "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is applied, and I informed him, truth is that it does not come down to the "judgement of you the uploader" but the will or whim of the Admins depending on how they feel that day. There is nothing that a barrage of text can do to change that fact. Oxyman (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not a fact, and it's pure garbage. You didn't get exactly what you wanted at some point, so now you're going to show up to say something negative that didn't help the gentleman above in the least. He asked for advice, not for your poor little me narrative. lNeverCry 11:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You're not disregarding my comments then? And no it's not my opinion it't my observation of what happens and hence a fact. What happened in the past is irrelevant to this conversation except as a personal attack disguised as criticism of my behavior, you raised it, not me and that is another fact. As I already said The poster inquired how "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is applied, and I informed him. Your en:ad hominem attacks demonstrate how admins really respond to a disagreement. Oxyman (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You didn't inform him of anything. You gave him your opinion. Even if this was based on how you were treated in the past, it would only signify the treatment of one editor by maybe one or two admins. I gave him meaningful advice, you gave him an unfair and inaccurate generalization based on your own limited experience. Let it go and move on. There's no need to go out of your way to try to set new users against Commons admins. lNeverCry 12:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I informed him of how moderators actually behave on this issue, you further demonstrated problems with commons admins with your en:ad hominem attacks and need to get the last word. It appears this is more then my opinion as other users are demonstrating that they know what I am saying. There is a problem here that can't be solved by just blaming me. I hope admins are able to consider other arguments but there is yet to be any evidence of this. potential uploaders should know what happens here and it is reasonable to tell them if they directly ask Oxyman (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Oxyman: Could you give example of a file, which an admin had nominated for deletion due to COM:SCOPE and 7 days later the same admin deleted it? Or, could you give example of a file, which an admin speedy deleted due to COM:SCOPE? --jdx Re: 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You should by now be fully aware of the drama and fest of en:ad hominem nonsense that would result in attempting to fulfill that request Oxyman (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
and when the editor rakes over the coals, then what? best to confirm with the new institution, about the toxic atmosphere here. btw, they are already aware of the "cultural buzzsaw" if you want a stable image repository, go to flickr. we all know "out of scope" is the new "i don't like it". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of the critical comments, they come from a starting point of concern for the long term maintenance of our collections. Unfortunately if someone with sysop rights makes a personal subjective decision, even many years after images have been uploaded, that they don't feel they have a likely educational purpose then they can claim they are doing a good thing by getting them deleted. I believe that the wider community does have a majority view that images should be kept where there is any subjectivity as to value, even when the educational value may be extremely slim. A good recent example was the mass deletion of portraits uploaded by Tm. These were high quality portraits showing a large variety of types of faces, expressions, ages, hair styles and so forth; in my view many hundreds were easily justified as having potential educational value for illustration or comparative analysis. Unfortunately as our processes only give a week before even mass deletions of thousands of files get removed, it is often only the regulars that have an interest in deletions that comment. Consequently though I noticed the DR, as this was happening in a busy week for me, I never got to express a view. It would be a great improvement if very large mass DRs, or any DR about an image that has been hosted on Commons for several years without issue, were to automatically take a month rather than a week before closure.
I suggest Mateusz Konieczny goes ahead with uploads without worrying too much about how to measure realistic educational value. If you think an upload will be of potential value to reusers, then you not going to be judged for volunteering your time. :-) -- (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Reasonable quality photographs of identified places are very unlikely to be considered not in scope, but the actual 'decision' of what is or is not in scope should always come down to the consensus at a DR ('scope' deletions should never be speedy). Usually images deleted as 'not in scope', in my experience, are cases of people trying to use Commons as if it was Flickr, to create personal photo collections of material with absolutely no context. Other than arguments about COM:PENIS type issues (by which I mean, if the image is redundant to all the other 'bad photos' of the same subject), images that give some usable context are not commonly considered as out of scope, and typically any 'plausible' explanation of how the image could be used is accepted. Reventtalk 14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I could recommend to add {{Location}}. In this case photos may be useful for external map services like OpenStreetMap. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the complaint here is that it is subjective and the community has not an agreed definition of scope. There are some people here who would argue for uploading every picture on Facebook if it had the right licence. The mass deletion of "portraits" (or photo booth snapshots of random people, to give them a more accurate description) was a good example. While an individual image of many things, if of high technical quality, detailed description and excellent categorisation, could be considered in scope, the reality is that many low quality images, completely lacking descriptions and a generic category are not going to be "realistically" useful. Just because an image contains a picture of a human being, or was taken at an event, does not mean it is automatically a realistically useful image of a human or of such an event. It is interesting that several have compared Commons to Flickr and yet many of the problems are when people slurp up a Flickr stream simply because it is all freely licensed. -- Colin (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Mateusz, scope is very broadly defined. Reasonable quality photos of public places are generally considered to be in scope. So, please go ahead and upload those photos. As mentioned above, photos considered out-of-scope are generally "personal" photos, bad quality photos, or photos of subjects that attract people not really interested in Commons as a repository of educational content (i.e. porn). --Sebari (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Naming a subcategory about peaks[edit]

Hello, I am interested in making a subcategory of Category:Rocky Mountain National Park for peaks, if I remember correctly there are about 60. I don't know if it should be "Peaks of Rocky Mountain National Park" or "Rocky Mountain National Park Peaks", or something else.

Then, my plan is to hook-up subcategories, like Longs Peak, to that category and add files about specific peaks to that subcategory that don't have their own category. Your help is greatly appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there are plenty of "Peaks of..." categories. So, I started Category:Peaks of Rocky Mountain National Park. If it isn't' right, though, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no 'naming rule', but "Peaks of..." would probably be more consistent with the way most other categories are named. Reventtalk 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-44[edit]

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Trizek (WMF): can you please sign your posts? It is customary for all posts on Commons to be signed. There is no special exception for posts from WMF groups. Thanks -- (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Hello - That's a newsletter not a post. Most newsletters are not signed, unless if they have been made by one person. I've checked on archives and none of Tech News issues I've seen have been signed in the conventional way. However, there is a kind of signature: " Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot" and a timestamp at the end of that newsletter. It is possible to contact the sender by checking the code if there is any problem (I guess you did), or follow the link in the newsletter's footer to see the newsletter history. I don't think it would be relevant sign; the messenger is far less important that writers or the message itself. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Could you point to where the Wikimedia Commons community agreed to this convention distinguishing "newsletters" to Village pumps have a special exception from being signed? As far as I am aware all bot operators are wholly responsible for the actions of the bot they operate, including messenger bots. Linking to a diffuse group of people is not taking responsibility for your actions. Let me know if we must have a vote of the community just for this, rather than you choosing to sign your posts. Thanks -- (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Commons could just unsubscribe from the newsletter if you hate it so much. Matma Rex (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    Please do not turn a request that posts to the village pump are correctly signed, into unjustifiable allegations of hatred. If you can provide links to an existing consensus then do so. -- (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    I am genuinely wondering whether you hate this news, as after all I am the one who subscribed this page to them [17] (previously they were only posted to Commons:User scripts/tech news, which no one reads). So far I have been under the impression that there is consensus that folks here appreciate them, and so far you've been the only person finding reasons to dislike it (the last time we discussed it was Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Tech_News:_2016-07). The news are signed with a timestamp, allowing archiving bots to function correctly. They are not signed with a username because they are authored by more than one person and posted by a bot. Do you think it would be useful if User:MediaWiki message delivery signed its posts? Matma Rex (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    (By the way, it feels dishonest to me to begin by implying that the authors of these news feel that they deserve a special exception for them as WMF – and I'll note that some of them do it as volunteers [18]. This is not how you start honest discussions, this is how you start if you want to tar and feather someone.) Matma Rex (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    The assumptions of bad faith made above are rediculous and deeply unpleasent, especially from a WMF employee/contractor. My opening sentence was "can you please sign your posts?", clearly not hateful words, nor an attempt to tar and feather anyone.
    No I do not think it useful if a bot were to fake-sign these. The bot operator is always responsible for the actions of the bot. The group of people making a newsletter are not the individual that posts it. If there is any issue with a post then a signature provides a real person to raise questions with, not a bot, not a project page on some other wiki.
    For the sake of clarity, and to return this thread to the issue rather than tangents of unfounded ad hominem accusations, the statement was "Can you please sign your posts? It is customary for all posts on Commons to be signed. There is no special exception for posts from WMF groups." -- (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
: Don't you have anything better to do that to criticize every WMF staff? Yann (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Obviously I have not done that here, however WMF employees seem determined to make repeated presumptions of bad faith to make my question go away. It seems a lot easier for them to address the question, odd that is not happening. -- (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikidatacommons poll[edit]

FYI, at Commons talk:Structured data/Overview is currently a poll regarding that wikidata stuff on commons file description pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Astinson (WMF): Please explain: Does wikidata staff want to replace the filedescription pages with some wikidata equivalent? Is that true? Does wikidata staff want to replace the category system with tags? --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The page that you linked to explicitly asks for creating subsections on that page, so you might want to ask your questions over there? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): No, i am asking it here so that everyone can rad the answer whiteout searching it on a project related page. Can someone from WMF answer the question now instead of asking me to ask the question again on a other page? :-) Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Astinson (WMF) is commenting elsewhere but not commenting here. Disappointing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter: As I have said (to you among others) before: The system we are building will augment the file pages. The Commons community can then use it to the extend that they wish to use it. You have seen the first demo system and we'll build this out further together. Back then you had asked for opinions from more Commons people if this is ok and the response was a pretty clear yes for me. As for categories: I don't have the answer yet. I only know that categories as they are have a lot of flaws and we need to find ways to make them better or build a better system together. It is not decided how that will look or work. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
it is disappointing, that the editor commented there and then stopped. why are you asking WMF staff about the intent of wikidata staff? how would he know? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove [rollback] link[edit]

On Commons, it is extremely rare that I need the rollback link on my watchlist or on Special:Contributions pages. Watchlist notices tend to load or collapse exactly when I'm about to click a link, and I've misclicked (luckily my own) multiple times on Special:Contributions. Is there a way to, say with a common.js function, remove that [rollback] link? Storkk (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you view the HTML for the rollback link and see if it has a "class=" attribute? With both Chrome and Firefox you can right click the link and select inspect. If it does have a class you could do .mw-changeslist .nameofrollbacklinkclass, .mw-contributions-list .nameofrollbacklinkclass { display:none; } on your custom CSS sheet (you can find the link on your Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering page). Just replace "nameofrollbacklinkclass" with the class on the rollback link. I don't have rollback rights so can't quickly see the HTML. If you want you can paste some of the HTML you see around the link here put in <code><nowiki><code></code></nowiki> tags. The links could potentially be encapsulated in a different element that needs to be hidden instead, sometimes a span/p/li/etc element, it varies depending on the HTML. So if you're unsure you can paste some of the HTML. Offnfopt(talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Woohoo... thanks, Offnfopt! Inserting .mw-changeslist .mw-rollback-link, .mw-contributions-list .mw-rollback-link { display:none; } into my Special:Mypage/common.css (so that it affects mobile as well as regular) has produced exactly the behavior I was looking for :) Storkk (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chinese translation for "Contact us"[edit]

While I briefly saw the Chinese-language interface for the Commons I notice "Contact Us" wasn't yet translated. In Simplified Chinese it would be "联系我们" and in Traditional: "聯係我們" WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I have created MediaWiki:Contact/zh-hans for Simplified and MediaWiki:Contact/zh-hant for Traditional Chinese. It should be fine now. --jdx Re: 07:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 01[edit]

Hidden file[edit]

's Hertogenmolens.jpg
In the history of the file there is a different picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Sector271, who uploaded both pictures, might have more information about the two different pictures. However, it appears that they were only active for one day in September 2011. --Gazebo (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
They look like opposite sides of the same building or set of buildings. Perhaps this just needs a {{split}}. Storkk (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 02[edit]

Commons:Photo challenge September results[edit]

Arthropods: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Crab spider on Campanula barbata.JPG Krabbe am Strand in Ägypten..IMG 8178ВЕ.jpg Rinden-Springspinne Männchen.jpg
Title Crab spider (Unidentified Thomisidae) on Bearded Bellflower (Campanula barbata). Krabbe am Strand des Rotes Meeres in Ägypten. Male of a european jumping spider "Marpissa muscosa".About four fold magnification (ratio to sensor area). Munich (Germany)
Author Thiotrix Kora27 Thcilnegeg
Score 13 13 12

Congratulations to Thiotrix, Kora27 and Thcilnegeg.

Local culture: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 1 3
Image Turkish tea glass.jpg Venezianische Messe Ludwigsburg 089.jpg Sadhu in Janaki Temple, Janakpur-September 22, 2016-IMG 7437.jpg
Title Turkish tea offer alle 2 Jahre findet diese Messe in Ludwigsburg statt Sadhu sitting in the ground of Janaki Mandir, Janakpurdham Nepal.
Author Maasaak Achim04 Bijay chaurasia
Score 12 12 11

Congratulations to Maasaak, Achim04 and Bijay chaurasia.

Please join us in this month's challenge: Rocks and Minerals, and Towers --Jarekt (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Files with maps[edit]

I discovered that files which contain coordinates now seem to be placed into the non-existing Category:Files with maps. Not sure what to do about this. - Takeaway (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

And User:Traumrune seems to have just changed it from a red-link to a working category. Is it necessary to have and this category and Category:Media with locations? - Takeaway (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I think there is no use to have both categories. When I discovered the red link, I couldn't remember the correct name of Category:Media with locations. category with maps is no good name, it's confusing and all files there, should be in media with locations. Traumrune (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Organization of Category:Surnames, Category:Female names and Category:Male names[edit]

Hi, I currently have a little dispute with Tuválkin. Its actualy about Category:Maria Amália Vaz de Carvalho, but could affect a lot of more categories. I sorted it under Category:Maria Amália (given name) and Category:Vaz de Carvalho (surname), which are sub-cats of Category:Maria (given name), Category:Amália (given name) and Category:Vaz (surname), Category:Carvalho (surname). All cats within "surnames" and "given names" are origanized that way up to now. He now sorted it directly under each single sur- and given name and raised a speedy to Category:Vaz de Carvalho (surname). His argument is that this is the way names are handeled in Portugal. Is Portugal here realy different to the rest of the world? Or may the current method be incorrect for all people? I would like to get more opinions for convince either me or him about how to handle this. Thx. --JuTa 21:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  • In general Tuválkin is probably right, at least about the surnames, but this is a weird case, because her father was also a Vaz de Carvalho. Normally she would get one surname from her father and a second from her mother (or, with the de, it could be her husband's) but that seems not to be the case here. I'd appreciate hearing from a native speaker of Portuguese as to whether this pattern (first and second surnames both from the father) is at all common. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I allready invented portuguese speakers here. --JuTa 22:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
For given names, I think the categories should be only for individual names, not multiple ones together. Using the example above, I think that person has two given names, not one given name with two parts. I would put that category only under Maria, but wouldn't object to it also being under Amália. I wouldn't like to see us have to have categories for every possible combination of given names, which we appear to be starting. Where given names are hyphenated, such as Category:Anne-Marie Slaughter, I would put them under the hyphenated names (in this case, "Anne-Marie").
The surnames are a different story. There are different ways of handling these.
  • If Portuguese surnames are determined the same way as Spanish ones, then Maria Amália also has two surnames that I would handle separately and not together. People who use that naming convention sometimes use only one of their legal surnames, which shows that the compound names are not seen as a unit. For example, a former president of the International Olympic Committee was known as Juan Antonio Samaranch, but his full name was Juan Antonio Samaranch y Torelló. His son is Juan Antonio Samaranch Salisachs, taking one surname (Samaranch) from his father and one (Salisachs) from his mother, showing that "Samaranch y Torelló" is not an unbreakable unit, but two separate names used together.
  • In some cultures/languages, people getting married sometimes add their spouse's surname to their original one. How to handle these depends. Some add the spouse's name and use their original surname as a middle name, considering their surname to be just the new one. These cases should be put under individual surnames. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of these. Others use both names as a unit, sometimes hyphenating them: these cases could be put under a compound surname.
  • There are people with multi-part surnames where the surnames should be taken as a unit, such as Category:Petrus Vander Borcht, who is alphabetized under V, and Category:Adrian Carton de Wiart, who is alphabetized under C.
This all shows that surnames sometimes have to be evaluated carefully for cultural use, personal use, and possibly other considerations.--Auntof6 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I also suspect that with Maria as a first name it may be trickier than with some others, because at least in the Spanish-speaking world (not so sure about Portuguese) you have names like "Maria Pilar" that are kind of thought of as a single name, sort of like "Jo Ann" in English. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

CIA on UFO[edit]

Hi, I didn't see this mentioned here, so just in case someone is interested. The CIA has released documents about UFO, available here: [19]. Some people might want to transcribe these on Wikisource, or any other idea? At least, no copyright issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

November 03[edit]

Delete poster?[edit]

Yes check.svg ResolvedDo not start the same discussion everywhere. Yann (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. "Mid Autumn Festival.png" and "Full Mon Festival (small) .png" are posters drawn by me. Why delete they? Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Admins can use COM:SCOPE to delete images they don't like whenever they want Oxyman (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
They were deleted on copyright grounds. @Goodmorninghpvn: If you are the copyright holder, and they are not derivative of other works that you don't own the copyright to, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. @Oxyman: While I understand you are pissed off at one or more of us for reasons I am neither familiar with nor particularly interested in, repeated injections of random negativity in discussions where your interjections are irrelevant are unhelpful. Storkk (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll continue to post relevant comments, what is irrelevant and unhelpful in more ad hominem nonsense such as accusations about weather I am "pissed off" Oxyman (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Making incorrect claims (except in the most egregious cases, they almost always require and get DRs rather than being deletable "whenever [admins] want") regarding scope-related deletions in answer to a copyright-related question is not relevant. And if it is not evidence of you being pissed off about something, how should it be read? Storkk (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I made no incorrect claim, DRs can and do just end up in Admins deleting images on their whim without genuine or proper considerations and it's no use being offended that I have observed that the Emperor has no clothes. Admin challenge alert! can an admin respond withoutad hominem nonsense? Oxyman (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
no they cannot. challenges to admin privilege take precedence over anything else including responding to deletion inquiries. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. That is ridiculous! Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Goodmorninghpvn: laying aside Oxyman's remarks for a moment, and trying to solve this: as Storkk said, see the process at COM:OTRS for what we need. The reason this process is in place is to protect creators of copyrighted works from having just anyone come along and pretend to "release" someone else's rights.
  • Note that you only need to go through the COM:OTRS process once, not for each image. Just make it clear that the account is yours and that images of your work will be uploaded on this account. Then, once you get an authorization number from OTRS, you can use that same number on all such uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodmorninghpvn (talk • contribs) 16:18, 03 November 2016 (UTC)

Goodmorninghpvn (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

November 04[edit]

Same basic photos uploaded several times[edit]

Hello community, I kindly ask for clarification in regards to the following question: Shall anything be done if (old, copyright-expired) photos have been uploaded multiple times, or should I just leave them? I came across this problem while trying to order some categories with lots of old photos, like some ethnography-related categories from Southeast Asia. The following photo (uploaded independently 5 times) would be one example:

Thanks in advance for any advice, --D-M (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi D-M. We should not keep exact duplicates, so I've tagged File:Garçon et fillette dayak (Indonésie), vers 1920.jpg as a duplicate of the larger File:Dajak children.jpg using {{duplicate}}. The others are not exact duplicates and could likely serve different needs. In other cases, for non-exact duplicates, deletion should be requested through a deletion request stating that they are out of scope, being fully superseded by the best version. However "fully superseded" generally means that the existence of the "better" version renders totally useless the "less good" version for pretty much any realistic educational purpose. This is a pretty high bar. I'd personally stick to tagging exact duplicates and nominating very nearly exact duplicates. Storkk (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, thank you for the quick answer! So, I just let them alone for the time being, unless I find unquestionable examples like the one tagged by you. Thanks again. --D-M (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@D-M: it would be helpful to add them to the "|other versions=" fields in the {{information}} templates, to let people who find one know of others they might prefer. To preserve sanity, if I were doing it, I'd just make sure those that are the "best" as I saw them were so referenced. You might also find {{superseded}} useful if you find one that is clearly better but not so much better as to render the first useless. I don't think it belongs on any of these, however. Two principles to keep in mind are: a) think of disk space as essentially free and limitless b) strive to make the best easier to find. Storkk (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
And in a case like this, within the "|other versions=" fields in the {{information}} templates, the appropriate way to link is with the {{other version}} template. - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I think using a gallery tag works better than the {{other version}} template. The template doesn't have any specific comments regarding the image being a different version so not getting any benefit from any type of localized message to the viewer. It is limited to a single image, meaning including multiple of the same template for multiple versions which can get a bit messy. With the template it will stack the images vertically, with the gallery it is configurable, goes horizontal and vertical which saves screen space. The template seems a bit unnecessary to me, a template including a template just to put a single image in a table versus using the gallery a built-in feature. Offnfopt(talk) 22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Storkk, Offnfopt, I've tried it with the gallery-feature, and I think it works fine (see any of the above images to see the result). I will attempt to cross-link other versions with this feature whenever I come across them, I think that is a veryo useful function for this problem.--D-M (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
For that matter, I've sometimes used a gallery for this purpose myself. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note that there are two separate templates meant to be used to fill the "|other versions=" fields in the {{information}} templates: {{Otherversion}} and {{Other}} (maybe they should be merged?). They both allow for comments to be added to each presented thumbnail. -- Tuválkin 12:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Apart from filling the "|other versions=" fields in the {{information}} templates, some of these photos of which we keep several versions of, usually “famous”, historical photos, might benefit to be categorized together, as in Category:Guerrillero Heroico (this is routinely done for many paintings). -- Tuválkin 12:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

might want to go to photograph template, since photographer is different from publisher / author. might want to create wikidata item . Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

November 05[edit]

Sequences not working[edit]

Commons:Sequencer The example is Sequence:Cats which is entirely blocked out with an HTML comment. Sequence talk:Cats is all about how the sequence software hasn't worked for years. What is being done with sequences? Is there a consensus around fixing or removing them? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Pebble smartwatch app for finding nearby unillustrated Wikipedia articles[edit]

I recently made a tool that is probably of interest to Commonists who have a Pebble watch: Diderot, a watchface that shows you the nearest unillustrated Wikipedia article. I've been using it for about a month and a half, and it's been a lot of fun; I took a lot of photographs of places that didn't have photos. It uses a wmflabs tool that filters out articles that have only png or svg, so you can find articles that have a map or logo but not photograph.--ragesoss (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

On that same note, we also have the commons mobile app. Though not sure how the GUI would act on such a small screen. Offnfopt(talk) 22:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

November 06[edit]

What should I do to remove black lines?[edit]

Files I uploaded (see right) is appeared black lines in thumbnail. What should I do to remove black lines?--Kkairri (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is caused because of a compatibility issue with the images using CMYK colorspace and the software used by the wiki to generate thumbnails. Currently what needs to happen to resolve the issue is convert the images to use the standard RGB colorspace. I went head and converted both images to use the RGB colorspace. Offnfopt(talk) 01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. Could you tell me what software you use to converting?--Kkairri (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded another revision to the images. The first was converted to RGB using photoshop. The second and current version was converted just by opening the image with irfanview and resaving as JPEG with highest quality setting, which saves as RGB. I also did a test converting to RGB using imageMagick but the result ends up with a green tint. You may be able to convert using GIMP, so you may want to give that a try also. Feel free to revert the images if you like the first conversion better. Offnfopt(talk) 02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I did it with irfanview!! Thank you very much!--Kkairri (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Do we have any sort of dispute resolution process? Two users are in dispute about what precisely the policy says should be done in a situation (see Special:PermanentLink/212014616#Giorgi Balakhadze). Perhaps I am being naive, but I think DR is the best route rather than a blanket block. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Please see Commons:Dispute resolution. Thanks, Poké95 02:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! If anyone likes doing this sort of thing, I would appreciate assistance. I am not terribly good with such tasks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre Many files are discussed there so I'm not sure which file(s) you think need a DR. Disputed areas on a map are always a tricky subject, one side may claim a area is theirs while the other side claims it is theirs. Control of that area may flip flop between different groups. I don't think a DR is needed, it takes a lot more work to start a map from scratch than to work from a existing map and update it. Regarding the changes made to a map, best to have some type of reference to the changes being made, same way you would do for making changes on a wikipedia article. If you're making a change you should have some type of reference to back up your change, same goes for people reverting changes to a map, they should have a reference to back up their claim to revert the changes to the map. So I think best way to resolve this is to have both sides provide their evidence on why a change should or shouldn't happen. This in addition to the information provided on the Commons:Dispute resolution link posted by Pokéfan95. Offnfopt(talk) 02:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
On Commons, we can easily have multiple versions of the same map. Usually two people shouldn't be fighting it out over one map (except perhaps where that map claims to represent the view presented in some particular source), they should simply each upload their version. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
+ 1 - the trend is to overwrite a file in use, to express the POV. and softly so as not to attract attention. why collaborate, when you are right? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimaps user group[edit]

I have made a proposal in IdeaLab to create a Wikimaps user group.

Do you think that would be a good way for mapping communities in Wikimedia to go forward?

Wikimaps activities have been focusing on historical mapping, but the user group would be made for all mapping related activities. The goal is that people with many different ideas for using the geographic component in their projects would come together, share their expertise and help each other forward.

The user group would give the community an affiliate status within the Wikimedia movement, while still keeping the group organic and without organizational structures. If you think you can endorse or join, please visit the page and leave your mark!

Best, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I don't see the reasoning behind needing a grant for a map usergroup. If the reason is having a common place for the group separate from a language specific wiki, you can create a workgroup page on commons and get a group going now. You make brief mention of the "Wiki Loves Maps" event, but you don't specifically say you want to organize that event and if that is what you're proposing, that should be a grant of its own with detailed requirements of funds needed for the event. You have a grant proposal but you're not listing the amount of funds you need and what they'll be used for. I don't see how I could endorse this without more details and reasoning behind the need for a grant. Offnfopt(talk) 08:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
let a thousand user groups bloom. and activity organized elsewhere will of course be criticized on commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bad file names[edit]

I just found out Category:Bad file names. Is this a thing? I mean, we have detailed guidelines for naming and renaming of files, and one idea that comes out of reading them is that filenames are important and should not be chosen (anew), nor modified, at whim. And that’s exactly what this category and its subcats seem to aim for, and eitherway what it enables via simple categorization. Please note also that this cat (and check its file history, too) is not a regular maintanance category (or tree of subcats) with its contents transcluded from a renaming request (heck, it even lacks the __HIDDENCAT__ magic word!), but a regular category anyone can browse and transclude files to. I suggest that this category and its subcats be, at least, reëvaluated, with sheer deletion as a possible outcome of the discussion. -- Tuválkin 12:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Just had a brief look, and it seems that most (but not all) files in this category should indeed by renamed. That said, this category tree seems to me to be a duplicate to Category:Media requiring renaming and should be merged into it. --Sebari (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sebari, concerning the possibility that several, even many, of the affected filenames might be subject to COM:FR — and also concerning that that’s not the matter in discussion here: Transforming the main of these cats into a redirect to the proper mantainance category and deleting the subcats seems to be the cleanest approach. (And thanks for reminding me of Category:Media requiring renaming, Sebari — I knew it existed by was too lazy to look it up.) -- Tuválkin 14:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I moved all the sub cats and added the move template. I do not want to move around 7000 files per hand - not even using cat-a-lot. --Sebari (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Slowking4[edit]

why were these files deleted prematurely? Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Slowking4 given the fact that in the past, i was made to wait seven days before a deletion of own work, it is disappointing that an involved admin should jump the gun now twice in this matter. it reflects poorly on commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Clear license violations can be speedily deleted and do not require seven days' discussion. As you yourself pointed out in the DR that you yourself requested, the fact that these were license violations has been established, at the link that you kindly provided. No snark intended, but how does granting an early courtesy deletion of items that should clearly be deleted for license reasons anyway reflect poorly on commons? Storkk (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
i find the inconsistency in action par for the course. it is "i delete when i feel like it"; and this case is not clear at all, saying it is, does not make it so. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
OK - struck. I must admit that assuming good faith on your part, I really cannot understand your complaint, so perhaps I should butt out. Storkk (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any problem either, you're the uploader and made request to delete the files because the files are NC licensed which aren't allowed to be hosted on commons. There is no reason for 7 day discussion, the uploader doesn't need time to respond since you're the uploader that made the DR request and 7 days won't change the fact that the files are NC licensed, no reason to wait to delete the files. Offnfopt(talk) 21:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

November 07[edit]